Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 375 posts

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#241

Post by akira2501 »

Jorge1o1 wrote: post #31

The streets were never free. We paid for it with our tax money. (Not to mention our 22 trillion dollar public debt) I don’t think people expect streets to be free in the same way you don’t expect the police department to be free, the fire department to be free, public schools, etc. In any case, my point is, we paid for the streets with our tax money and our debt, so don’t masquerade this as some kind of “economic rec…

> where the people are FINALLY going to have to pay for those roads the government’s been giving away for free for so long.

The article also makes the annoying case that there are those who live in apartments and dwellings that have to pay for parking by code, but don't use that parking because they don't drive; however, this entirely fails to take into account the effect on the city as a whole. Parking and road access isn't about individuals, it's about making an entire metropolitan area functional.

While these people may not drive and thus are seemingly cheated out of tax money, I have to ask, where do they get their groceries and other goods? How do they expect medical services to reach them in an emergency? How do they expect commerce to occur within an arms reach but at reasonable prices?

We all pay for the roads because we all use them, whether we as individuals own a vehicle or not.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#242

Post by AnthonyMouse »

perennate wrote: post #222
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every other city's experience with congestion pricing shows decreased car use in favor of alternatives. Suppose the forest is on fire and instead of spending money to put the fire out, we just ignore it. Then a bunch of wolves come into the city to flee from the fire. Someone suggests that we introduce bears to the city in order to drive out the wolves. Many people point out what a terrible idea that is, but some c…

So, what is the better alternative? Doubling the number of roads? Building ten or so elevated highways crisscrossing Manhattan?

Build more housing in cities so that more people can live there instead of having to commute in. Eliminate minimum parking requirements so that pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods can exist. Fund mass transit with taxes and eliminate fares to create a cost advantage over driving which is progressive rather than regressive.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#243

Post by Xylakant »

asark wrote: post #132
Xylakant wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your freedom to drive where ever you choose on the fastest route infringes on freedoms of others, for example: * their freedom to drive on the fastest route possible * their freedom not to have a large road in front of their home * their freedom not to have their taxes invested in a road infrastructure ballooned to a level that they might not need * their freedom to live in a world that is not inflicted by global war…

I'd encourage everyone to guesstimate how much distance could be taken out of their commute or drive to the city by removing parking lots, huge highways and tens-of-foodball-fields interchanges, large set-backs and front lawns to keep people away from unpleasant roads, and so on, then check whether they could bike that distance in what it takes to drive. When I encountered the idea that cars being common causes them…

There’s the concept of “effective speed” that encapsulates that idea. Here’s (1) a sample calculation that someone did for himself and under his assumptions, the effective speed for him using a car is about 2km/h. That’s about half as fast as walking.

On top of the distance taken out of commutes, think about the space taken up in terms of real estate. In Munich, which is a fairly dense city, the estimated share of parking space of the city area is about 12.5%. If you include space for moving vehicles, that estimate approaches 50%. That’s a substantial driver of real estate prices and rents.

(1) https://www.urbanist-magazin.de/das-konzept-der-effektiven-g...

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#244

Post by amanaplanacanal »

CaptainDecisive wrote: post #196
clairity wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe just speak for yourself? the seniors i know walk more than the juniors i know. senior folks will happily share their opinions with you, so no need to speak for them.

Your comment is interesting because it hadn't even occurred to me that the parent comment might be being sarcastic. I thought the emphasis on love was being serious. My experience is older folks (maybe 80 and up? Not really sure) start to lose confidence or ability with driving and give it up. Hence need to walk and take public transport. So less cars and a more walkable neighborhood is a win for them as well as ever…

I'm only 62 and I hate driving. If I can walk or bike where I'm going, that's my preference by far, modulo whatever the weather is doing.

Unfortunately where I live the public transportation is awful, so I end up driving more than I would prefer.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#245

Post by ibm5100 »

Just a few points.

Congestion pricing seems like it will most negatively affect middle income people. Most low income residents use mass transit, making an exception for them moot. The wealthy have the means to pay $15-$25 without being a burden.

A more fair system would exempt NYC residents who have lived here for a minimum of 15 years. I believe the burden should be shifted to new transplants.

The real problem that we don't acknowledge around is that a sq mile can only hold a certain amount of people. NYC is grossly overpopulated (lived here all my life). I think the city should have a cap on residents significantly lower than the current population.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#246

Post by matchbok »

maxsilver wrote: post #164
dannyw wrote: post #3

It's sad to see congestion pricing in America. I had hoped that the long-lived cultural freedom of driving would keep it at bay for longer, but I guess not anymore. I live in Sydney. It takes a 45 minute drive to visit a family member, who is sick and homebound. To do so in the shortest and least congested route, I must pay 3 tolls: $14.85 total, one way; $30 dollars a trip. Public transport is not a suitable option.…

It's going to die. Urbanists have killed this freedom, it's only a matter of time. Everyone has forgotten all the benefits cars provide, and has focused solely on the drawbacks, just as cars became advanced enough to eliminate all of their problems in the first place. Today, in 2019, I drive a car that generates absolutely no pollution, makes no noise, is powered entirely by renewable wind electricity, and can drive…

Uh, NYC has never been filled with cars. Think you have twisted your perception of the past to fit your opinion.

Also, cars are not "public transit". Not sure how you arrived there....

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#247

Post by leetcrew »

rxhernandez wrote: post #153
v_lisivka wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drivers pay fuel taxes already. Fuel taxes are proportional to vehicle weight and power. IMHO, it better to tax normalized_area normalized_weight normalized_congestion . For example, if vehicle is 30% spacer than average, has 50% more weight per space than average, and uses road at peak hour when road usage is 50% more than average, then it should pay 1.3 x 1.5 x 1.5 = ~3x tax. If owner want to reduce tax, then it sh…

I mean, are they really proportional to weight and power? My Cayman weighs less than 3000 lbs, uses very little of it's power, in traffic, and gets 12-16 mpg (around 30 in no traffic). My rx300 weighed nearly 4000 lbs and would get 21-23 mpg in no traffic. My rx300 saw almost no traffic whereas my Cayman sees a lot simply because my last job didn't care whether or not I came into work (unless there was a meeting I ne…

the poster you are replying to misunderstood my sentence. there's no reason to directly tax powerful vehicles, unless you are using it as a weird proxy for fuel efficiency, which is already captured by per gallon fuel taxes.

I'm saying we should tax vehicles in proportion to some integer power of vehicle weight, since the road damage is superlinear with respect to vehicle weight. a big truck that weighs ten times as your Cayman does much more than ten times the damage. since we're trying to fairly distribute the costs of transit, the operators of these vehicles should be paying the lion's share of maintenance costs.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#248

Post by amanaplanacanal »

beefman wrote: post #170
torpidor wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average traffic speed in Sydney is 55kph, so a 45 minute drive covers a distance of 25 miles. Taking the IRS standard deduction for gas and depreciation, you pay about $1 in operational costs for every $1 you spend in tolls. I understand that you would rather pay x than 2x, but this is not “cultural freedom”, it is haggling over a price. But the fact that we ignore the $1 in wear on the drive belt because that wo…

The standard deduction ($0.58/mi) is very high. The marginal cost of driving depends on how much you drive. Driving the US average 15,000mi/yr, you can buy a nicely-equipped Mazda 3, insure it, fuel it (at CA gas prices), and throw it away when the standard warranty expires every 5 years for $0.53/mi. This cost is dominated by the production of the car and goes down almost linearly to something like $0.25/mi before m…

Where I live there are a lot more people driving Ford F250s than Mazda 3s. I bet that 58 cents a mile doesn't pay for their driving.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#249

Post by amanaplanacanal »

jstanley wrote: post #28
ch4s3 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congestion pricing is essentially a usage fee, and is highly efficient from an economic perspective. Without charging drivers for roads they get paid for out of general funds. There’s nothing free about non-drivers subsidizing private transportation. Furthermore, at artificially low prices, more people drive until congestion is unmanageable. Without that pricing your 45 minute drive might balloon to twice that amount…

> Congestion pricing is essentially a usage fee, and is highly efficient from an economic perspective. While I agree in principle, congestion pricing is generally a monopoly and not subject to the ordinary pressures of supply and demand, which means there's little to stop the price from being too low or too high.

I would suggest that the normal price of $0 is too low.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#250

Post by fzeroracer »

mruts wrote: post #237
fzeroracer wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how a flat fee is fair to someone making minimum wage versus someone making 90k+ per year? A flat fee would be a larger portion of their income which would be decidedly unfair. There's also that not all vehicles are going to tear up roads in the same way. Why would it be fair for trucks and what not to pay the same flat fee despite causing far more wear and tear on the roads? Your argument would resul…

To be clear, I don't think there should be a congestion tax in the first place. But flat prices are how everything else works in a free market, so it seems fairer than carve-outs or god-forbid, a progressive congestion tax. Which sounds fairer to you: a movie theater that charges $5 for a ticket, or one that charges a percentage of your income?

Roads are not a free market and attempting to apply free market logic to roads is a flawed argument.

People can choose whether or not to purchase a ticket. Many people cannot choose whether or not to drive. Which is why again, a flat tax would not be fair.

How would it be fair to expect someone on minimum wage or disability to pay the same amount to access a required service as someone far better off?

Post reply on HN